To think being a SAHM/housewife is not the same as someone claiming benefits?

[Jajana]

Was chatting to my sister and was talking about how my MIL is a housewife (sorry not sure if that’s the correct term). She said that being a SAHM/housewife is no different to someone claiming benefits and would rather claim benefits than rely on someone for an income!

Bearing in mind, FIL runs a very successful business and all of the money MIL receives is from private funds - not through the state.

Am i being reasonable to think being a SAHM/housewife isn’t the same as claiming benefits?

To answer the op, they are not the same.

In one scenario a couple is working together to optimise their utility by dividing up the responsibilities, with one partner going out to work, the other looking after household and children.

The second scenario is a person or a family needing help from the Government. Very different!

It's not about the right to stop working. It's because childcare costs more than some people can earn so it's just not worth it. The crux of it is that childcare needs to be affordable.

Can childcare be affordable, of good quality and not grossly exploitative of those providing it? Pay tends to be low, despite the unaffordability of the care for many people. Nobody seems to have come up with a palatable solution to that conundrum - just loud choruses of people saying they cannot afford to pay more tax to fund it.

Childcare having to be affordable could just be another way of saying that those who care have to be exploited.

(Unfairly exploited)

From a national perspective, any individual not working is lost economic output (earning and paying taxes) for society.

Let's say for argument's sake your FIL hired a full time nanny, cook and cleaner, and the family eats out a lot more... enabling MIL to work, who sets up her own successful business hiring 5 FTE. That is now 8 FTEs created plus business revenue generated (and so on since those 8 employees have income now...) out of that one more working parent.

Or alternatively, that sounds not far off from going back to the nineteenth century, with the vast majority living like servants servicing their overlords. I doubt the FTEs can all afford a nanny, cook and cleaner to help them get their domestic work done - nor can the nanny, cook or cleaner, so the vast majority get the shitty stick in this arrangement. Meanwhile, how useful are all these other jobs? Are they helping solve issues relating to climate change or dwindling resources, or exacerbating the problems and increasing inequality?

Not read all the replies, but if it wasn't for me staying at home for so many years then he wouldn't have been able to stay in his all this time.
So no, not comparable.

It's because childcare costs more than some people can earn so it's just not worth it. The crux of it is that childcare needs to be affordable
This
I'd have gone back to work years ago if childcare was more affordable.
It's only now they're both in their teens that I don't have to pay for childcare and can afford to go back.

I've never met somebody on benefits who I'd consider 'privileged'. On the other hand, I've known quite a few housewives who I'd say are. My ex MDs wife springs to mind here.

Agree with @Walkaround . In the past generations sahm’s did not only childcare, but helping out sick or elderly relatives. Of course not all of them liked it or were good at it (some did it due to lack of other options), but I kinda think we are heading for a crisis in this area - because we don’t have a pool of people who have the time to help out (I know some people help out elderly relatives on top of a job, but it can be hard to have enough time/energy).

This.
She is running the house so he can run his business and reach full potential.. They are partners as well as husband and wife.

the most dominant answer being given, sadly, is they did it to support their husbands career so he didn’t need to do any of the domestic shit at home or be bothered with the kids.

Yep. And not all partnerships (so-called) are equal as many women find out when he leaves just as the kids are past the age of independence and she’s left high and dry without support or a nice fat pension.

From a national perspective, any individual not working is lost economic output (earning and paying taxes) for society.

Even though the GDP only considers paid work to constitute production of goods and services, many people are beginning to see sense in the inclusion of homemaking in calculating the same. A study by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis found that if household production was included in estimating GDP, it would have added $3.8 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2010, which is nearly 26% higher.

So while it's not included in the measured GDP figures, it is actually included in the economic value produced.

It's because childcare costs more than some people can earn so it's just not worth it. The crux of it is that childcare needs to be affordable

But if childcare is valued so highly and is therefore expensive, it makes sense for a parent to do this job themselves.

Childcare needs to be good rather than 'affordable' imo.

I think what gets me is people scream it’s undervalued as child care is perceived as womens work, which is apparently wrong. But when asked on another thread if people would hire a male babysitter the resounding answer was no. So it’s women who won’t let men enter this field. And it’s women who then complain it’s perceived as womens work. It’s non sensical.

stopping men entering the child care field then complaining it’s seen as womens work is contradictory. It’s an own goal. And the same women complaining it’s womens work will fight tooth and nail not to be the one who goes to work when their husband stays home and becomes the stay at home parent.

in fact any bloke acting as a stay at home dad discussed on here as not working past the age a kids able to get subsidised childcare is described as a right cock lodger.

women are sometimes their own worst enemies. We can’t demand equality and insist only we do childcare.

@Frogslegsbigfeet

Exactly!

women are sometimes their own worst enemies. We can’t demand equality and insist only we do childcare.

My own view is that many women are terrified that if/when he does leave he'll take the kids so they will do anything to make sure that they are the primary caregiver.

women are sometimes their own worst enemies. We can’t demand equality and insist only we do childcare.

No absolute insistence or rigidity regarding roles here, however we can demand equality whilst having separate and distinct roles. We can demand to be valued equally, to have equal status whilst carrying out different roles. Just as we consider a doctor and a lawyer as having pretty much equally important roles in society yet their roles are different.

But when asked on another thread if people would hire a male babysitter the resounding answer was no. So it’s women who won’t let men enter this field. And it’s women who then complain it’s perceived as womens work.

Good point. I think the majority of women are happy to perceive childcare as 'women's work'. Women breastfeed, women are often very nurturing etc.

Equality simply implies that women have the same job opportunities if so wish. Obviously women without children will find it easier but all women should certainly get a great education and the opportunity for a career they enjoy. It's then up to them how they want to balance childcare/homework/career.

We can demand to be valued equally, to have equal status whilst carrying out different roles.

Absolutely. Childcare and looking after a home/family is absolutely valuable and should be valued. I feel it is actually.

@pinklavenders

But not enough for men to value it enough to want to do it themselves

It's good that this is your experience. However, I have experienced derogatory comments regarding SAHMs here and in real life. There isn't even a satisfactory title which everyone will agree with to describe the role. Some regard SAHMs as simply unemployed which is wrong since the role is an active one and one which involves no suggestion that paid employment is being sought. SAHMs are even accused of being anti feminist for undertaking a traditionally stereotypically female role and supporting the patriarchy by allowing men unfair an advantage in the workplace.

Then if SAHMs dare to defend their reasons for undertaking their role this causes offence since working mothers insist they can do all those things plus work in paid employment at the same time!

@hihellohihello

I'm not offended by sahms.

But wm can do what a sahm does and work.

And I've also experienced loads of derogatory comments about wm (never dads) online and personally irl.